Which commandments do you think are superior; Yahweh’s or Gnostic Christianity’s?

You may use whatever set of commandments you think Yahweh gave. There are a number of renditions.

As for the Gnostic commandments, I offer the following.

1. You shall place no commandments above these unless proven to be morally superior.
2. You shall value all people as equal before the law. The inequality of outcome is punishment enough of itself.
3. You shall live by the golden rule and respond with reciprocity of harm or care to what is done to you.
4. Use Gnosis and put logic and reason and their proofs above faith, which by its nature has no proofs, logic or reason.
5. You shall leave the environment in a better condition than what is given to you as an inheritance to your next generation.
6. You shall not impoverish the next generation and live according to the means you produce as their labor and wealth is theirs and not yours to squander.

Gnostic Christianity and free thinking lost the God wars when the Orthodox Church decimated us and burned most of our scriptures. I think that Gnostic Christians had a superior set of commandments then as well as now. Those commandments were not only meant for seekers after a God but also a guide to secular law. Both secular law and Christianity seemed to ignore the second commandment of equality till our modern era. As a Gnostic Christian, I ask (rhetorically), what took the world so long to catch up to Gnostic Christian thinking and what is Islam and other backwards thinking people waiting for.

Many have a problem with the 10 commandments given by Yahweh so I thought I would see if there is a consensus of thought on the Gnostic Christian ideology as compared to the Christian ideology. The main complaints I see are that Yahweh’s commandments have created a Christian ideology that denies gays and women equality. I think all souls to be created equal and thus deserving of equal human statue and citizenship.

Others as seen in these two link have their own views and I would add that I think Yahweh’s no divorce policy, --- which Jesus confirms. --- and Yahweh’s policy of accepting bribes, ransoms or sacrifices (these are all analogue) to alter his usual and moral policy punishing the guilty and not the innocent, --- to the immoral policy of punishing the innocent instead of the guilty, as exemplified by his accepting Jesus as a sacrifice to save sinners whom God himself created to be sinners.

Seriously, man. Between this, God; a good father or a deadbeat dad, and I am nuke proof, you are really making Gnostic Christianity something to steer well-clear of. How can an entire group of people preach the importance of morality as determined through free-thought, and then (by whatever means of confirming the existence of God) retroactively transgress on each of those determinations. In the same breath, no less.

God must have said no to you having candy once in a grocery store. Instead of stopping the tantrum, he must have let it unfold. His mistake to be sure. I'll just tell you what I tell any other person like this, in real life: Quit the attitude. Cut your hair and get a job, you hippy!

(11-29-2017, 08:47 PM)KaelisRa Wrote: Seriously, man. Between this, God; a good father or a deadbeat dad, and I am nuke proof, you are really making Gnostic Christianity something to steer well-clear of. How can an entire group of people preach the importance of morality as determined through free-thought, and then (by whatever means of confirming the existence of God) retroactively transgress on each of those determinations. In the same breath, no less.

God must have said no to you having candy once in a grocery store. Instead of stopping the tantrum, he must have let it unfold. His mistake to be sure. I'll just tell you what I tell any other person like this, in real life: Quit the attitude. Cut your hair and get a job, you hippy!

(12-02-2017, 12:29 PM)Enemy No. 1 Gnostic Wrote: Compared to your other posts, which showed some intelligence, you decided to go personal, show how small your mind is, by showing you cannot evaluate the O.P. at all.

Listen, there's only so much crotchety that people can endure. As yours were the latest posts, I've read all of them. They always seemed to be different questions, utilizing assumptions that contradict many of the claims made. Furthermore, you always seem to use them as the vehicle to come back to the same unfounded point.

I can only discuss intelligent matters for so long, before I have to attempt to remove the bias. As this is the internet, I understand that is impossible. So, I get to amuse myself instead.

Free thought doesn't confirm the reality of a god, however it doesn't the opposite either. Ultimately, logic could make such a determination, but logic is about uncovering the a priori truth of things. That requires much deliberation and practice. You cannot argue for the existence or non-existence of an object using faulty logic.

Lastly, free thought does not equal logical thought. So, you can't even use free thought on intellectual matters. All it enables you to do is choose when you wish to think about a subject. The rest is subject to a rigor that even science can't hold itself up to and succeed.

(12-02-2017, 12:29 PM)Enemy No. 1 Gnostic Wrote: What do you find worthy in a God who always kills instead of curing?

Regards
DL

With everything I've said, there is so much identified to be wrong, with the mere asking of that question. It assumes God exists. It makes a claim that He only kills, when He could cure. Thus, it cherry-picks evidence from a book that has no verified information.

The question isn't an intellectual question. It seriously drips bias. What's worse is you ask the same thing over and over again.

(12-02-2017, 12:29 PM)Enemy No. 1 Gnostic Wrote: Compared to your other posts, which showed some intelligence, you decided to go personal, show how small your mind is, by showing you cannot evaluate the O.P. at all.

Listen, there's only so much crotchety that people can endure. As yours were the latest posts, I've read all of them. They always seemed to be different questions, utilizing assumptions that contradict many of the claims made. Furthermore, you always seem to use them as the vehicle to come back to the same unfounded point.

I can only discuss intelligent matters for so long, before I have to attempt to remove the bias. As this is the internet, I understand that is impossible. So, I get to amuse myself instead.

Free thought doesn't confirm the reality of a god, however it doesn't the opposite either. Ultimately, logic could make such a determination, but logic is about uncovering the a priori truth of things. That requires much deliberation and practice. You cannot argue for the existence or non-existence of an object using faulty logic.

Lastly, free thought does not equal logical thought. So, you can't even use free thought on intellectual matters. All it enables you to do is choose when you wish to think about a subject. The rest is subject to a rigor that even science can't hold itself up to and succeed.

(12-02-2017, 12:29 PM)Enemy No. 1 Gnostic Wrote: What do you find worthy in a God who always kills instead of curing?

Regards
DL

With everything I've said, there is so much identified to be wrong, with the mere asking of that question. It assumes God exists. It makes a claim that He only kills, when He could cure. Thus, it cherry-picks evidence from a book that has no verified information.

The question isn't an intellectual question. It seriously drips bias. What's worse is you ask the same thing over and over again.

That is because I wish an answer that the religious cannot give because like you, only cherry pick what they wish to read as confirmation bias.